the archives of f/k/a . . .

- below are haiku and senryu written by “dagosan”, this weblog’s Editor, David A. Giacalone. most have been on the Home Page, some are outtakes and rewrites. each is a work in progress. i hope they show improvement over time and encourage others to try writing haiku -

 - click here for dagosan’s archive -

upstairs tenant

clears his throat

i turn on the exhaust fan

 

                    [April 6, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now it’s Spring:

peeps

melting on the dashboard

 

                    [April 5, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the river’s back

within its banks —

her look of disappointment

 

                    [April 4, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

such thick roots —

the flooding river

topples the giant oak

 

                         [April 3, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

April rain —

today

the river’s coming to me

 

                                [April 2, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

 

April 1 —

no one here

to make a fool of me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first scull of the year

arms ache

just waving

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

last day of March

her pink slip

no prank

             [April 1, 2005]

 

 - click here for dagosan’s archive -

Following a pointer from a relative concerning the Catholic position on Living Wills,

I found myself today at the Priests for Life website.  You can find a discussion there

on the moral dangers of living wills [scroll to #15], and even an audio homily on the

subject (with which I disagree) by Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for

Life, who preached at the recent funeral services for Terri Schiavo. 

 

However, what I thought my readers might find more interesting — even if not more

important — is the Online Poll offered on the PfL home page (scroll down).  The

current question is

Should the United States Congress exercise veto power over  

Supreme Court decisions?

I’ll be curious to see the results of this poll.  Prior poll questions and results – with lopsided

numbers that would be expected from fundamentalist-conservative Catholics and their allies 

– suggest that a particular response was anticipated from the website’s editor. For example:.

Q: Do you think it’s time to start blockading abortion clinics again?

Results: Yes: 1814 No: 821

 

Q: Do you agree that the Democratic Party “can no longer be 

morally supported by Christians”?

Results: Yes: 13,005  No: 792

A little bit of thought suggests that the congressional veto of Supreme Court decisions has

no such obvious answer for pro-lifers or pro-choicers, or any other political animal (of the

partisan or philosophical sort).   How would Fr. Pavone like a potential congressional veto

over a decision overturning Roe v. Wade?  How would limited government foes — or

opponents — feel about such veto power over interpretations of the Bill of Rights?

 

I hope other webloggers with better credentials than I on the topic — like Professors 

Althouse, Bainbridge, and Grace, or Mike “Fed84” Cernovich, and the whole Volokh gang – could

help Fr. Pavone and his audience take thoughtful positions on the question. 

 

update: holy cow: of bull and manure (Sept. 19, 2005)

 

 

if someone asks
answer: it’s a dewdrop
OK?

 

Kobayashi ISSA,

translated by David G. Lanoue

- there’s been too much prolix punditry around here lately, so

i owe you more haiku than usual -

 

 

 

 

 

a bit of birdsong

before we start

our engines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

since you moved

just a road

I don’t go down

John Stevenson

 from Quiet Enough

 

 

 

 

 

20,000 feet

    sunrise so close

       I can touch the light

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sculpture park
between Romeo & Juliet
a robin’s nest

Pamela Miller Ness 

“20,000 feet” from  pink light, sleeping (1998)

“sculpture park” - HaikuCanada Newsletter 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 innings

8 beers

  o  b  e  e  d

b   b  l  h  a

night

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

saturday rain                             

my daughter fingerpaints                           

her step father’s face

 

Ed Markowski

“6 innings” from games (pawEprint 78) 

 

 

 

 

• 
  
  from dagosan:  

upstairs tenant

clears his throat

i turn on the exhaust fan

 

                    [April 6, 2005]

           

Reading through facilitator Sherry Fowler’s list of suggested resolutions from

LexThink participants, I noticed that quite a few of them mention the concept

of “value billing.” (via MyShingle)  For example, one says to “teach lawyers

difference between value, price, and cost” and another says “read Ron Baker’s

writings on value billing ”

I am all for modernizing the law firm and the lawyer-client relationship — so long 

as it is a tool for better serving the client’s interests, rather than one that merely uses

modern selling techniques and technology to articificially increase lawyer fees and

profits and to stave off the democratizing effects in the legal services marketplace

of the digital revolution.

I continue to believe that the “value billing” mantra and the constant drum beat

against hourly billing can be contrary to client intersts, if they are not accompanied

by a renewed commitment by each lawyer to the fiduciary and professional obligations

owed to each client.  See Value Billing or Venal Bilking? and chronomentrophobia.

LexThink participants might want to consider the following discussion from my

piece on value billing, before becoming advocates of Ron Baker’s theory of value pricing

by professionals:

Update: (April 11, 2004):  Soon (I hope), Matt Homann will give us his explanation

of value billing, to help assuage my concern over the use of branding and value

pricing to achieve “premium pricing” of lawyer fees.  Matt suggested last month

that I read The Firm of the Future: A Guide for Accountants, Lawyers, and Other Professional Services by Paul Dunn & Ronald J. Baker.  Matt said that the book “sets out their vision of value pricing and serves as much of the model for my new firm.”   I couldn’t find the

book at my local Library (and won’t pay $40+ to buy one).  However, I did use the

Amazon.com “Search in the Book” feature to check out “value pricing” or “value billing”

and ethics.  The results were not the least bit calming for me on whether value billing

will result in reasonable fees or merely produce “premium fees”.

1. For example (at p. 217) The book asserts there is no ethical contradiction from using value billing.  But, it quotes from an NYSBA report, which says an agreed upon price is fair “subject to market realities and the attorney’s professional obligations”.  Of course, the whole issue is what the lawyer’s obligations are when reaching the fee agreement [disclosure of relevant facts, offering a fee that is reasonable, taking into account the client's sophistication, etc.].
2. The book also says value pricing is ethically okay because businesses do it
   all the time — using airlines charging different fliers different prices for the

   same seat, movie theatres’ price for popcorn, and premium ice cream makers,

   as examples.  My reaction:  None of those sellers have fiducial duties; none

   promises to put the customers’ interests first (except when that will incease profits); none sell a product whose qualities the buyer is unable to judge.  As I wrote back to Matt, “If movie theater popcorn is the touchstone for the ethics of value billing, I rest my case.”

Note:  On April 23, 2004, Matt Homann had a post titled “Primer on Value Billing,” in

which he calls Ron Baker “an absolutely amazing visionary.”  [Reminds me of the name

partner at my first law firm, who advised me that the word "amazing" could be used in

place of any expletive.]  In the post, Matt points to a 2001 Baker piece, and says “I guarantee

that you it will give you incredible insights into pricing your services.”  In the piece,

“Burying the Billable Hour,” Baker highlights the following pricing strategy from Harry

Beckwith as central to his theory of value billing:

“Like money, price talks. It changes perceptions.

Price changes the actual experience of using the service:

A high price actually improves the experience. Watch

what your price says. Push price higher. Higher prices

don’t just talk, they tempt.”

Let’s think long and hard before that principle becomes the core of lawyer pricing

in the new millennium.

afterthoughts: See , e.g., “Value Billing and Lawyer Ethics“(Jan. 28, 2004); “broadening the billable hours debate” (Aug. 18, 2007)

the bill collector
with shoes on steps inside
to the hearth

stillness–
in the depths of the lake
billowing clouds

Kobayashi ISSA,

translated by David G. Lanoue